🚀 go-pugleaf

On 25 May 1996, Jim Jagielski wrote:

> At the very least, you should have gotten a flavor that newsgroups should
> only be created when there's a need for them. The voting process is required
> to ensure that the rest of the UseNet groups don't fall into the sillyness
> that's abundantly clear in the alt.* hierarchy.

Well, here's what I've been saying. In my search, I found no such document
that stated that voting was a required part of the process of creating a
new group in the balt hierarchy. Yes, I am aware that for "rec" it was
required, but in my search and subsequent request for information (that
went unanswered) I found nothing that stated voting was required for a
regional group.

> Maybe I'm being an old stick-in-the-mud, but there _are_ procedures and
> standards for things; even though companies like Netscape, who should
> know better, seem indifferent to that.

Well, I'm all ears. I've asked you several times now to forward the
relevant information to me.

> >If you decide not to, it's your users who have an interest
> >in the goings on in the Baltimore music scene who will miss out. The
> >decision is yours.
>
> I don't know how to take the above... It seems to imply that you were
> totally in the right and that sticklers like Howard and I are doing
> a disservice to our users by suggesting that procedures be followed?

Well, it's a disservice if you're being a stickler on details and keep
arguing your point without providing the details that you are being a
stickler about. See my point?

> Usenet is distributed... what good is it if a few local ISPs carry balt.music
> if it's not a recognized valid newsgroup? Did you offer to fix this situation
> by creating a valid newgroup control message? I did.

Well, as far as I know from following the details on the "Creating a valid
newgroup control message" FAQ, my control message was valid.

> Did you offer to write the proposal and see that the group gets
> officially accepted? I did.

Again, I ask you to please forward the information on what constitutes an
officially accepted proposal for this hierarchy, and I will happily
comply with the guidelines and write it myself.

>
> Finally, I don't want to come off as preachy or anything... I certainly
> am not taking any of this personally, and I hope that no one is as well.
> At the very least, this is being useful since it will result in a cut-and-
> dried, with no possible measure for misinterpretation, procedure and
> protocol for the balt.* hierarchy.

I can see your point, and I hope you can see mine. I sent out a request to
see if there was a protocol for creating the newsgroup and got zero
responses. After failing to find any documents with this information I
went ahead and created the group, because from all my research it appeared
that there was no such protocol. A few days later you and Howard come
along and say "you did it wrong." Which is all well and good, but one
thing you failed to do is to mention what the "right way" is. I don't mind
being told I've done something incorrectly. What I *do* mind is you
repeatedly telling me that I've done it incorrectly without actually
providing the information that I keep asking for that tells me *what* I've
done wrong and what the *proper* way of doing it is.

-Adam

---
       "...if one strives at hearing for the sake of constant virtue,
       out of seeking liberation from cyclic existence, gradually one
                           becomes a Hearer."
                           - Chandrakirti